Searchers searching for Steve Fossett have located ‘uncharted’ plane crashes. Does this mean that they were never found? Or just that they were never charted? If the former, will they look for remains?
Most likely they are not well-known crash sites, and so the searchers don’t automatically discount them. Very obvious ones are sometimes removed/blown up to stop constant false alarms from people new to the area
Somewhere I got the impression that crash sites, when found, were marked so as to be visible from aerial searches.
Maybe the markers got blown away or some such thing.
What I was getting at is, if a previously undiscovered crash site is found, would a party be sent out to look for human remains?
I was in CAP too. Ground team. Is there even a ‘chart’ of where wrecks are?
Anyway, I think the requirements to clean up the reckage is pretty loose. Or it used to be. Depends on how difficult it is to reach the site.
Could they be finding old sites that are WHERE found but just not cleaned all the way up?
ISTR seeing wrecks on sectionals, but now I’m not so sure. (I know shipwrecks are on marine charts, as they may be a hazard.) I do remember seeing photos of crash sites that show big red 'X’es painted on them.
Yes, they’re finding old crash sites that were largely left in place. (I’d assume that valuable components will have been salvaged.) What do the Media mean when they say ‘uncharted’? That the wrecks are not on the charts? Or if they’re not on the charts, they’re not on other charts or in a database? Do they mean that some of the wreck sites have never been found? (Which leads to the question about what will be done with previously-unknown crash sites.) Unfortunately the Media don’t know anything about aviation. They’re still like 'OMG! Fossett was flying without a flight plan! :eek: ’ We really need another Hal Fishman.
I’ve found the answer to my question at MSNBC: